"Diversity is our Greatest Strength !". This is the mantra that is continuously chanted by mainstream academics, journalists, educators and politicians in the United States today, and they mean all kinds if diversity: language; religion; culture; sexuality and in particular, race. Of course, when you ask them to explain what exactly is so great about about having 40 million Mexicans living in America, or how it is that 6 million Muslims improve the lives of the American people, you wont get and answer, you'll probably just get yelled at for asking the question.

The reason you wont get an answer is because diversity is not a strength, it's a weakness. Without racial diversity there would be: no race riots; no dangerous inner cities; no "Black Lives Matter" protests; no prejudicial "Affirmative Action" programs; no worries about whether there are too many Asians at Harvard and not enough Hispanics on television; no racial discrimination law suits, no compulsory diversity training. There would also be no "White Guilt", no "White Privilege", in fact there would be no racial conflict or tension at all. Can you imagine such a peaceful, unified and carefree United States ! Admittedly, there would be fewer Mexican restaurant and the US might not win so many medals in the Olympic Games, but I think most Americans could live with that.

Just look at what racial diversity is doing to American politics. The Democrats have become the non- White party, 90 - 95% of Black African - American and 70% of Hispanics and Asians now vote Democrat. At the same time, the Republican party is increasing becoming the White people's party, a number of authoritative, mainstream American political analysts are now forecasting that within a decade, 80% of White (European descended) Americans will vote Republic. So it appears that racial diversity is already rendering elections in America merely a "racial headcount" and not a choice between different ways to govern a country.

The whole myth that racial diversity is a strength has been debunked by many recent research studies, perhaps the most decisive evidence comes from a research investigation conducted by eminent Harvard sociologist, Professor Robert Putnam who conducted a large study involving over 30,000 Americans from a broad range of communities, ranging from those in Southern towns of America that were essentially all White to those that were racially very racially diverse, such as the central districts of Los Angeles. When Putnam had collected all of his data, and began to look through it, he was deeply shocked what he found. He had been expecting (and indeed hoping) to find that increased levels of racial diversity has a positive effect on community life. What he found, however was robust evidence that racial diversity destroys trust in communities. The findings from his study clearly demonstrated that people who live is areas of high racial diversity, like Los Angeles don't trust their neighbours. Moreover they don't trust their politicians, they have few close friends, they don't get involved in their community, they don't do charity/volunteer work and they are less likely to vote. About the only thing that they do more of are go on protest marches and stay at home watching television. Putnam was so astonished by his research results that to begin, he simply could not believe them, he felt there there must be some other factor at work - something he had overlooked - apart from racial diversity, that would explain his results. He then spent literally years hunting for some alternative explanation that could account for research finding. Ultimately, however, after 6 years searching, Putnam could not find any social factor, apart from the degree racial diversity, to explain the variation of levels of trust in communities that his research data confirmed. He then finally published his research in 2007 in the high-impact journal, Scandinavian Political Studies as in paper entitled : "E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the 21st Century." (cf: June 2007 30(2); pp. 134 - 174) Since Putnam's paper was published, other researcher from around the world have confirmed the same phenomenon, that is. there is a direct relationship between levels of diversity racial, ethnic, religious, tribal) in a community and the level of trust that prevail. As diversity is increased, levels of trust are diminished.

Diversity destroys trust; with enough diversity in a society, people stop having much of anything in common, and ultimately diversity destroys CULTURE. Here's an example. Consider the buildings that house the three branches of American government: the US Supreme Court building; the Executive mansion or the "White House"; the legislative branch in Congress and The Senate. These buildings could have been built ONLY in a country that drew its culture directly from Western Europe ( i.e. "The West") which is a culture that has one of its primal foundations in the culture of ancient Greco-Roman antiquity. The architecture of all these three building was strongly influenced by by the Classical style of ancient Athens and from other great Western
cultural traditions such as the 16th century Palladian architectural style which is incorporated into design of the White House You will see the same thing in other American public buildings like the National Gallery and even the Department of Agriculture building, both of which bring to mind the Doric Temples of ancient Athens.

Note that these buildings were all erected before America decided that "diversity is our greatest strength". They were constructed at a time when the American people knew that they were a Western European people, and when they were very proud to identify themselves as such - as Westerners". They were very proud, as well, of their Western cultural heritage and the extraordinary achievements their of culture over the millennia. But how long will it be, I wonder, before the increasing non-White/European country that America is becoming begins to openly denounce buildings like Congress and the White House as offensive White-Supremacist architecture that must be destroyed and replaced with something more "politically correct" and "multicultural" I can see it now, the White House, Congress , the Senate, the US Supreme Court building and the National Gallery ( and public building that looks like them) being bull-dozed into the ground and replaced with buildings that are intended to suit all of the different racial/ethnic groups. What would these new building look like? I think you might get a good idea if you google up the images of building like these: (1) The Supreme Court of Brazil (2) the parliament building of Bangladesh or, say, (3) the Opera House of Taiwan and (4) the United Nations building. What we have in these buildings is a good example of the appalling ugliness and cultural vacuousness of modernist architecture. Buildings like these are the products of a soulless, "machine" architectonic. They are aesthetic eye-sores which have no roots in any distinctive cultural tradition. These buildings could be placed anywhere or nowhere, - they are what some traditional architects call "junkspace". They have no conceivable connection with unique cultural/ethnic identity of the native people in those countries. This is what architecture for a racially diverse society that celebrates multiculturalism looks like, i.e. like something a bored 4-year old could design in 30 minute at kindergarten.

On the other hand, countries that don't celebrate diversity can still have a national architecture. Take for example the swimming pool enclosure at the Ritz Carlton in Saudi Arabia. This is a space fitted with vaulted columns of glowing, polished marble and a splendid arabesque aesthetic that immediately brings to mind the exotic beauty of a niche in an medieval Islamic mosque. Even Saddam Hussein's former palaces in Baghdad had deep aesthetic foundations in his culture. These palaces are all large buildings that draw on a variety of traditional architectural styles including Moorish, Timurid (Turkistani), ancient Iraqi Mesopotamian and Ottoman. While in Asia, the distinctively styled Korean President's house, known as "The Blue House" (Cheung Wa Dee) is a striking example of a wooded building that was constructed using the traditional curving, sloped forms of the "hipped-and -gabled" architectural style. These building look like they belong in the country they were built in Meanwhile, back in the US, we have to quote Prince Charles a "monstrous carbuncle" like the Afro - American Museum in Washington DC. Here is a build that is completely divorced from the Western (European) cultural tradition; it doesn't look like anything in particular except a large nondescript , lurid, bronze/gold (?) -clad, roughly - rectangular. And this is what happens to every element of a culture when its heart is cut out.

What will the "Multi - Cultis" put in the Afro-American Museum, I wonder? Will it be the most beautiful art or political "Affirmative Action" or "Black Live Matter" art? Music, movies, drama, the fine arts, novels they all have to satisfy everyone, which means they wont satisfy anyone. Who listens to "Classical" music in America ? Whites and some Asians. The great fugues of Handel, Beethoven and Wagner, amongst others,are culturally speaking, quintessentially Western. A piece of music like Richards Wagner's, "Flight of the Valkyries", is, without doubt, one of the purest expressions of the true soul of Western culture to have ever been composed. There was once a world-class symphony orchestra in Oakland, (California), but it went bust when Oakland's leftist hipsters decided the town should become "vibrant"

Have you ever wondered why it is so many of today's American movies are violent, special - effects extravaganzas ? It's because they're made for a world market - the least common denominator. An important part of the world market is China and recently (last year) the Wall Street Journal was reporting (quote): "Hollywood under Pressure to put More Chinese Actors in the Spotlight."

And it's even worse when you have the whole world living in your country. Nothing survives, anything of value is ground away in the churning and mixing. Multiculturalism does not mean that authentic national/cultural traditions exist side-by-side, it means that all traditions are worn away and destroyed.

I support TRUE diversity. I want to see Japan remain distinctly and proudly Japanese. I want the same for Nigeria, England, Somalia and Denmark. Every culture, no matter how strange it my seem to us (Westerners) is beautiful to its own people and deserves to survive. Could the Buddhist way of life as it is practised in Tibet ever survive the onslaught of mass immigration, racial/ethnic diversity and multiculturalism?

What the left in America calls "diversity" is the mindless destruction of everything in their country that is rooted, that is authentic, that is judged to be of value and therefore worth preserving, that has risen out of a shared heritage over countless generations. Real diversity requires a commitment to conserving/preserving the common legacy of a distinct people and their culture. The irony is that his is something America seem to understand perfectly well when it comes to protecting the unique cultural traditions of OTHER peoples in foreign countries. When in 1965, for example, the people of Thailand were threatened with a armed communist insurgency that was absolutely intent on destroying every element of their traditional culture and way of life, the US military promptly arrive to help defend the Thai people from the communist aggressors and did leave until the threat had been neutralised in 1983. Likewise in Bolivia (1966-7), South Zaire (1978) and Cambodia (1967-75).

What America does not seem to understand is that for the past 50 odd years (since 1965), an internal Neo-Marxist insurgency has been waging an increasingly successful cultural war within its own borders; a war whose ultimate goal is to destroy the United States Western/European nation; to destroy its traditional Western (European) culture. America is now being swamped by immigration from non-Western nations, and everything that Americans cherish, everything they have striven for and built since the birth of their nation in 1776 will be lost. It will be lost if European American turn their own country over to people who are NOT Americans. Ultimately, Americans will lose themselves. If non-White (European) immigration continues at the pace it has done and every institution in the US promotes inter-marriage between races in 200 years there will be no White?European Americans in North America. There will still be Asians (Japanese, Chinese), Africans, Latinos, Amerindians etc; in the world because most of them live in countries that don't celebrate diversity. But the White American will disappear from the US and so will his culture - Western culture. Western culture, the greatest, and most objectively superior culture that has ever emerged in the entire history of human civilization will disappear from North America.

McDonalds and Pizza Hut, Beyonce and Taylor Swift are examples of American junk culture, that is US -style, capitalist pop-culture designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the population. America is founded on traditional Western cultural values and II'll explain what I mean by this below

Firstly tough I need to let you know that the term "Western civilization" means all of the world's Western nations considered collectively. So, Western civilization today = the USA + Australia + Canada + the United Kingdom + New Zealand + the nations of Western continental Europe (like Germany, France, Holland, Belgium, etc.) Whenever you present a list of Western countries that you say should represent Western civilization, there is inevitably controversy. For instance, some people would say that the Scandinavian countries of Denmark, Sweden and Norway should be included, and I think they have some very good arguments to support their case; others will insist that Spain is a Western nation, but personally I think that there are good reasons to exclude it from group of Western nation. Anyway, one thing is certain and that is that America is universally regarded to be a legitimate Western nation.

So, what makes a nation a Western nation? The adjective "Western" refers to the dominant culture of the country, and Western culture is short for Western European culture. The origins of Western culture are ancient and varied and still the subject of intense debate. Some historians argue that Western culture first emerged around 500 BC in Classical Athenian antiquity; others claim that an important foundation of Western culture can be traced to the so-called "Battle Axe" culture of an ancient group of Indo-European speaking people who migrated into Scandinavia and North Western Europe during the Iron age; he Islamic/Judeo- Christian culture of the city of Jerusalem is yet another claimed spiritual ground that influenced the development of nascent Western culture. So let's keep thing managable by setting down what values have characterised Western nations, like America over the past 400 years ( i.e. the modern era)

As a Western nation, the USA , from its birth in 1776, right up to today, has embodied the following life-affirming cultural values:

*freedom
*reason
*individualism
*man's natural rights
*capitalism
*self-reliance
*self-responsibility based on free will and achievement
*the need for limited (republican) government
*the rule of law
*art and literature depicting man as efficacious in the world
*science and technology
*the rules of logic
*the idea of causality in a universe government by natural laws that are intelligible to man

These are the values that have made Western culture objectively superior to any other culture that has ever existed in the entire history of human civilization.

Dachshund wrote:...
McDonalds and Pizza Hut, Beyonce and Taylor Swift are examples of American junk culture, that is US -style, capitalist pop-culture designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the population. ...

I thought McDonalds, at the time, was designed for highly mobile US working population who used to transfer across the great distances of the US for employment and appealed in that it was something recognisable in a new environment?

There is no doubt that since the Renaissance it's the Western World that took the lead in almost every kind of endeavor whether political, artistic or scientific. Bits and pieces were taken from other civilizations but the revolution caused by the West was entirely its own. Whether this creates an inherent superiority among westerners as somehow superior beings is something many would like to believe but really can't be taken seriously even by historical standards.

The main catalyst which caused the West to prevail compared to most other civilizations, who were mostly stagnant during that period, was the massive state of flux, turmoil, revolution Western Europe was in causing virtually everything to be reevaluated and the Ancien régime of old Europe to be gradually dismembered and reordered.

The point is it could have happened in a few other places had it's strict societal structures been as vulnerable as it was in Europe. It was not a matter of white superiority which elicited these changes only that we became much more aggressive against the fixed systems of rules by Divine Right and the monolithic power of the Roman Church which forced examination and changes in every direction.

I don't think anyone can call it 'white' achievement. Look at all the things the Chinese invented. There was the golden age of Islam, with advances in science and mathematics. Humans are infinitely complex and you can't simply say that one race of people has made all the advancements.

Oh, and huge chunks of the US aren't 'diverse' at all. New York isn't the whole of the US. Quite a few states are nearly 100 percent white!

I don't think anyone can call it 'white' achievement. Look at all the things the Chinese invented. There was the golden age of Islam, with advances in science and mathematics. Humans are infinitely complex and you can't simply say that one race of people has made all the advancements.

Oh, and huge chunks of the US aren't 'diverse' at all. New York isn't the whole of the US. Quite a few states are nearly 100 percent white!

There is no disputing the fact that Western culture is objectively superior to any other culture that has ever existed in the entire history of human civilizations. Other great civilizations have existed, for example, the ancient Egyptian civilzation, the Mayan - Aztec civilization, the Byzantine civilization, the Chinese civilization but none of them ever achieved anything like power, influence, extent of emulation and efficiency that Western civilization has since it first emerged in Europe around 1000 AD.

Western culture (its science, technology, philosophy, literature, architecture, art works, politics, morality, social mores/manners) is very unique and it essentially is the work of one race of human beings (the white/Europid native peoples of (North) - Western Europe. The root foundation of this race was in the white proto -Indo-European people who were located in the region of the Pontic-Caspian steppes of Eurasia in about 4500 BC. These people eventually migrated into Western and Northern Europe and Scandinavia in the Nordic Bronze age and, in turn, gave rise to the Germanic tribes ( such as the Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Visigoths, Huns, Vandals, etc) and the Scandinavian Norsemen ( i.e. the Vikings of the 7th -10th century). These people were all early "Westerners" and all genetically similar. So, for example, the Founding Fathers of America who were White Anglo-Saxon protestants can, just to begin with trace their ancestry back to the Angles and Saxons who were the two major Germanic tribes who invaded and settled in England; they might also have some Celtic (Scottish, Irish, Welsh) or perhaps some Viking blood in their veins as well.

Are white/European Westerners superior to all other races. It seems to me that if they were able to create the greatest civilization/culture in all of human history, that the answer is pretty much, "Yes, they are." I know that it is not PC to say this, and it's likely to upset lots of people, but a philosophy forum, should have an interest in the truth; and that's all I'm doing, i.e; telling the truth.

A thousand years ago the west was a joke and the Middle East the hub of learning and civilisation. Later on western Europeans went by another name - Barbarians.

Everything cycles. Why are people so insecure that they'd ignore the obviousness of the history and posit local current circumstances as an eternal verity? Where's the logic?

As I said before, jazz was a great achievement, art music capable of great sophistication and complexity - and created by black people. D, your polemic is fatally infected by the halo and horns effects. There's no nuance - it's basically "whitey good, blackie bad", which is a schoolyard level stance not befitting a philosophy forum. You do better when you put away your prejudices and focus on existentialism.

A thousand years ago the west was a joke and the Middle East the hub of learning and civilisation. Later on western Europeans went by another name - Barbarians.

Everything cycles. Why are people so insecure that they'd ignore the obviousness of the history and posit local current circumstances as an eternal verity? Where's the logic?

As I said before, jazz was a great achievement, art music capable of great sophistication and complexity - and created by black people. D, your polemic is fatally infected by the halo and horns effects. There's no nuance - it's basically "whitey good, blackie bad", which is a schoolyard level stance not befitting a philosophy forum. You do better when you put away your prejudices and focus on existentialism.

Jazz originated in the South of the US. It can basically be understood as arising from the American Negro's confrontation with European music (Western music). So, If there had been no Western European music in America, then American Negro's would never have created jazz. Remember, as well, that Miles Davis and his band and Duke Ellington all rely on Western musical instruments to play their jazz: trumpets, trombones, piano, double bass, saxophone, etc. No (Western) trumpet = no Louis Armstrong; geddit Greta

My position is not "whitey good, Blackie bad". Rather it is Whitey would simply like to be left alone with his own people and his own whitey culture in the whitey/European Western nation/s that he created and built and be left in peace to live out his WASPY - Whitey life. (This, BTW, was Abraham Lincoln's position in the US). Whitey would rather that Blackie and his Blackie "culture" stay in his native Blackie homeland. Same for Mexicano/latinos, same for Arab Muslims, same for Asians. Whitey no wantie millions and millions of non-Whitey's flood into his happy Western Whitey home.

Geddit Greta? I have nothing whatsoever against other races: Black, Yellow, Red, Brown. They each have their unique cultures: e.g Japanese, Mexican, Korean, Amerindian, African (Congolese, Somalian) Saudi Arabian, Punjabi, Afghan and so on, and those cultures are all worth preserving. As a Westerner who enjoys travelling, I love to visit faraway places and experience exotic (non- Western cultures). I took a vacation in India 2 years ago and it blew my mind, in terms of culture (architecture, artwork, dance, crafts, traditional dress) and religion/spirituality there was so much of outstanding beauty and wonder.

The lesson you need to learn, Greta, is that each high culture in the world has its own distinctive "soul" or, if you like, its own distinctive "psyche". Actually, perhaps, "personality" might be metaphor; each high culture has its own unique personality that contains its own constellation of particular psychological traits, the most important of these I will call "primary emotions". Trying to mix different high cultures is like trying to mix oil and water, it just doesn't happen. If you persist, however, and try to FORCIBLY mix them and their different primary emotions you are simply asking for trouble, what you WILL get is major strife, conflict and even violent rioting. It human nature, I'm afraid, Greta.

Re the Barbarians... The "primary emotions" which had the most influence in shaping the nature of Western culture, and which have always been responsible for it uniqueness are the following:

*avarice
*the lust for power
*vainglory
* individual pride
*self-obsession/intensely egocentric world-view
* a yearning to experience the thrill of conquest/victory in battle and destruction
* the experience of joy in excitement, danger, violence, warfare
* an aggressive disposition that relishes conflict
* a conceited desire for honour, property and social status
* a restless determination to achieve ever greater deeds, and to forcibly overcome or destroy any impediment/obstacle in one's way

These are the "primary emotions" that most conspicuously distinguished the ancient Indo-European people/culture who migrated into Western and Northern Europe and south Scandinavia around 3000 BC. They were, in short, like alpha males on steroids, and their communities were strictly patriarchal, patrilocal and patrilineal, (so I think you would have really loved life in one of their settlements, Greta ! . Invaded might be a better term than migrated as these people were (apart from being pastoralists) horse-riding warriors who LOVED the thrill of battle. They were also the forefathers of the Western European Barbarians you refer to. The Barbarians, Greta, were Germanic tribes like the Saxons, Visigoths, Huns and Vandals, etc; who conquered and then destroyed the Roman Empire around 500 AD. They were tough, wild, ferocious fighters, who craved the honour and prestige that they would be awarded by their peers if they distinguished themselves in battle through their reckless bravery, maniacal savagery, bloodthirstiness or willingness to die a noble death. Like the Vikings who came on the scene after them in Denmark, Sweden and Norway in the 7th century, their abiding philosophy of life was very simple: (1) "Death or Glory" and (2) "Death before Dishonour": there was no greater shame for a Norseman than to die a dishonourable death in battle; and it was taken for granted that if needs be you would sacrifice your own life in the pursuit of glory. A Viking, even if facing impossible opposition would fight ferociously in single combat against his enemy to the bitter end.

You will, I expect, say to me that Western culture/civilization is very sophisticated and civilized, the West's culture is not something that the bestial Barbarians of "Germania" or bloodthirsty Viking Beserkers had anything to do with at all. The answer to the query is that the violent will to power and conquer, to smash all resistance hindering you from achieving your goals, the resolute intention to be determined to advance and forge ahead no matter what, the lust for victory, the desire for individual glory/ honour/ status/ prestige were increasingly SUBLIMATED over time. This is actually what happened in ancient Athens. If you're interested in the details, let me know, and I'll explain it all to you in a separate post.(It's kinda complex !)

I don't think anyone can call it 'white' achievement. Look at all the things the Chinese invented. There was the golden age of Islam, with advances in science and mathematics. Humans are infinitely complex and you can't simply say that one race of people has made all the advancements.

Oh, and huge chunks of the US aren't 'diverse' at all. New York isn't the whole of the US. Quite a few states are nearly 100 percent white!

There is no disputing the fact that Western culture is objectively superior to any other culture that has ever existed in the entire history of human civilizations. Other great civilizations have existed, for example, the ancient Egyptian civilzation, the Mayan - Aztec civilization, the Byzantine civilization, the Chinese civilization but none of them ever achieved anything like power, influence, extent of emulation and efficiency that Western civilization has since it first emerged in Europe around 1000 AD.

Western culture (its science, technology, philosophy, literature, architecture, art works, politics, morality, social mores/manners) is very unique and it essentially is the work of one race of human beings (the white/Europid native peoples of (North) - Western Europe. The root foundation of this race was in the white proto -Indo-European people who were located in the region of the Pontic-Caspian steppes of Eurasia in about 4500 BC. These people eventually migrated into Western and Northern Europe and Scandinavia in the Nordic Bronze age and, in turn, gave rise to the Germanic tribes ( such as the Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Visigoths, Huns, Vandals, etc) and the Scandinavian Norsemen ( i.e. the Vikings of the 7th -10th century). These people were all early "Westerners" and all genetically similar. So, for example, the Founding Fathers of America who were White Anglo-Saxon protestants can, just to begin with trace their ancestry back to the Angles and Saxons who were the two major Germanic tribes who invaded and settled in England; they might also have some Celtic (Scottish, Irish, Welsh) or perhaps some Viking blood in their veins as well.

Are white/European Westerners superior to all other races. It seems to me that if they were able to create the greatest civilization/culture in all of human history, that the answer is pretty much, "Yes, they are." I know that it is not PC to say this, and it's likely to upset lots of people, but a philosophy forum, should have an interest in the truth; and that's all I'm doing, i.e; telling the truth.

Regards

Dachshund

So. An unscientific Nazi moron. 'Western civilization' is actually just modern human civilization. Of course it's going to be more advanced than past civilizations. Duh! That's call evolution. Duh!